Natural Resources - Right to Hunt, Fish, and Harvest Wildlife
HB0447 proposes a Maryland constitutional amendment and related statutory changes to recognize a right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, including the use of traditional methods, subject to regulations and restrictions enacted by the General Assembly. The bill states that this right would be preserved for the public good and that hunting and fishing are preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife in the State.
The measure also amends the Natural Resources Article to update legislative findings and intent for fishing and hunting. It emphasizes the cultural, social, recreational, and economic value of these activities, including their role in conservation, employment, tax revenues, and the management of wildlife, natural areas, fisheries, and related resources. The constitutional amendment would be submitted to voters at the November 2026 general election, and the statutory changes would take effect only if the amendment is approved and proclaimed adopted by the Governor.
If enacted and ratified by voters, HB0447 would add a new right to the Maryland Declaration of Rights and revise state natural resources law to codify hunting and fishing as protected activities. It would not eliminate regulation, but it would require that any limits be tied to conservation, wildlife management, and preservation of hunting and fishing, while expressly preserving trespass and property-rights laws. The bill would affect hunters, anglers, wildlife managers, landowners, and state agencies responsible for natural resources and game regulation.
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears generally supportive of hunting and fishing interests and framed as a preservation and conservation measure rather than a deregulatory one. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or amendment debate in the available record. The bill’s findings and intent language suggest an affirmative, pro-hunting and pro-fishing posture.
The main potential point of contention is the creation of a constitutional right to hunt and fish, which could be seen as limiting future regulatory flexibility even though the bill preserves regulation for conservation and management purposes. Another likely issue is the bill’s explicit statement that it does not affect trespass or property rights, indicating concern about conflicts with landowner protections. The balance between protecting traditional hunting and fishing practices and maintaining state authority to regulate wildlife and access would likely be the central debate.